“Now answer mine:

"So, in fact, to avoid violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics the Universe would HAVE to have a beginning."

Do you want to recant this statement?”

“FOR THE ????TH TIME ...

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT EXPANSION.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGIN.

This seems to be news to you, but creation is not about what currently exists. It's about THE BEGINNING. SOMEWHERE YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DISCUSS.

This blows me away.

I can show you that the 1st Law is violated IF you show me ANY mathematical model of that event.

Can you do that?

Apparently not, because you've been unwilling to do so.

I can't pull a violation out of my butt because the premise of my statement is that such an event is NOT SUPPORTED BY MATHEMATICS OR KNOWN PHYSICS.

The reason for that???

Because it would VIOLATE the known laws of those sciences.

I can't produce something that does not exist for you pitts.

You have claimed that it does not violate those laws, so only you could produce mathematics supporting that.

Let's see it.

What don't you understand about this?” (sarge)

Is this the post you are talking about? It does not offer evidence that at two points in time the total energy of the Universe was different. It's a lot of ranting and raving that says nothing. So back we go again ...

“(pitts) “If you are saying that the way the origins of the universe that are taught in schools violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics then I would want to know what is taught that violates these laws.

The laws themselves would be violated under Big Bang theory.”
Sarge
4:20:58 PM (sarge)

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says that for a closed system the total energy is a constant over time.

Hence to show that the Big Bang violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics you have to show two times (T1 and T2) where the total energy of the Universe is different. I can see this is hard on you so I'll make it easy. I'll give you one of them:

T2=Midnight, August 28, 2005, CST from Earth, total energy of the Universe=E2

So I have given you half the answer!

Now all you have to do is provide T1 and E1 such that E1<>E2... one time in the entire history of the Universe where the total energy was different than it is at the time I gave you.

If you can't do this then you have not shown that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics has been violated under Big Bang theory and your statement is wrong. Once you acknowledge this we can move on to causation where I will happily answer your question.

I can't pull a violation out of my butt because the premise of my statement is that such an event is NOT SUPPORTED BY MATHEMATICS OR KNOWN PHYSICS. (sarge)

Start pulling ...
last edited: 8/29/05 4:36:23 PM”

“touchdown!”

“touchdown?

crash - He is asking me to give him something I said does not exist. By him asking it, and me not being able to provide it, it only further makes my point. touchdown? You must mean I scored a touchdown. He is also avoiding the fact that he said the universe MUST have a beginning 2 weeks ago, and now to keep up with this conversation he's now claiming it had NO beginning. Touchdown is right.

He is also being an ass, and he knows it. He has nothing to provide for this debate any longer and since he's in a corner, he's acting like an ass.

pitts - I asked you to tell me how I could provide you with something that I claim does not exist. You didn't answer that. Come to think of it, there isn't much you have been able to answer in this debate.

You have claimed victory though. No answers, just a declaration of victory. You've been exposed for the fraud you are.
last edited: 8/29/05 5:35:00 PM”

“safety?”

“fumble”

“He is asking me to give him something I said does not exist.

So you admit that there is no time T1 where the energy of the Universe is different than the one I gave you. This is good. You just proved that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is valid under Big Bang Theory.

That’s a contradiction of your earlier statement that started this off:

“(pitts) “If you are saying that the way the origins of the universe that are taught in schools violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics then I would want to know what is taught that violates these laws.

The laws themselves would be violated under Big Bang theory.”
Sarge
4:20:58 PM (sarge)

Checkmate.”

“dont your wives miss you guys?”

“mixing chess and football is a big mistake gents”

“pitts - It's obvious you are just acting like an ass, and you're embarassing yourself in my opinion.

I did not say there is no T1 where the energy of the Universe is different than the one I gave you. What I said is that SCIENTISTS CANNOT MATHEMATICALLY REPLICATE A T1 because IT VIOLATES THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. That's why it doesn't exist. You can't have something that is DIFFERENT when it DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.

Is this hard for you to understand?”

“checkdown!

touchmate!

rah rah ree kick em in the knee

rah rah rass kick em in the other knee”

“I asked you for something very specific: A time T2 where the total energy of the Universe was different than it is today.

You just told Crash:

He is asking me to give him something I said does not exist.

If this T2 doesn't exist then that means that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is valid under Big Bang theory. You just said it didn't exist. Hence your original assertion that started this discussion is incorrect.

Double checkmate.”

“I am off to make dinner for my family. Don't post a reaction. Think about this for a bit. You are too smart to respond in anger. Let's move on to something else now that we have put this behind us.”

“pitts - You haven't said anything new. You are framing my response incorrectly. You are the one that needs to think about this. I do believe I know what I mean to say, so for you to imply that you know better what I am saying is patronizing, and demonstrative of you being an ass. That's not anger talking. That's just what is happening. And you claiming victory, once again, shows your arrogance.

First of all, I believe you meant to say "If this T1 doesn't exist ...".

T1 is the very event than began the universe.

It's also the event you previously referred to as a quantum fluctuation.

It's also the event at which time a singularity supposedly appeared.

My ORIGINAL statement was referring to T1, as you have called it.

My ORIGINAL claim was that scientists are unable to define it using known science/math because it violates the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

My ORIGINAL claim was that they would have to come up with some NEW physics in order to not violate those laws.

ANYBODY can go back to the beginning of our discussion and see that's what I said.

My ENTIRE ascertion has been, in essense, that there IS NO T1. Not because there is no beginning of the universe, but because T1 represents a descriptor to define a known point in time defined under known mathematical and physics laws.

That point CANNOT and DOES NOT exist under known mathematical and physical laws.

I have provided you MANY opportunities to give me such a model, and you have ignored the question every time.

ANYBODY can read this thread and see that's what happened.

The bottom line is this: (and yes, I am repeating myself once again)

T1 DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE IF IT DID IT WOULD VIOLATE THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS.

That was what I originally claimed.

This is what I am still claiming.

Don't be an ass pitts.

You want to move on? Fine. Move on. You want to claim victory? Fine. Claim victory. The truth is preserved here on this thread of what was said.

The truth is preserved here that 2 weeks ago you claimed that the universe "HAD" to have a beginning.

The truth is preserved here that now you're claiming the universe "ALWAYS EXISTED".

This is another point you have completely ignored.

Enjoy your dinner.
last edited: 8/29/05 6:15:49 PM”

“holy shizit

a potentially fascinating topic gets turned into an endless pissing contest that turns on one or two points

and i dont wanna hear any "its him, not me" type responses”

“Nope, that won’t work. Sorry.

First, let’s remember what we are working on:

“(pitts) “If you are saying that the way the origins of the universe that are taught in schools violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics then I would want to know what is taught that violates these laws.

The laws themselves would be violated under Big Bang theory.”
Sarge
4:20:58 PM (sarge)

I have said that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which you claim is violated under the Big Bang theory, states that for any two times T1 and T2 the total energy of a closed system is a constant. Hence to support your claim you have to show two times T1 and T2 where the total energy of the Universe is different.

I had to choose a T2 for you (you can change this time to something else is if you wish) so I chose a date on Earth near to the present date. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics says that the total energy of the Universe at that moment, E2, is the same as the energy at any other earlier time in the Universe, E1 and T1 respectively.

If you are going to prove that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is violated in a Universe described by the Big Bang theory then you must APPLY the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to the Universe described by the Big Bang and show where the violation takes place. You have not done this in your last or any other post I have read.

You selected a T1 that you claim is associated with the “event that created the Universe”. It is a simple matter of causation to imply that your T1 “event” must occur before the Universe existed since the Universe would be a consequence of this “event”. Since the Universe existed at t=0 then T1 must be negative. The Big Bang theory does not permit for t < 0. There is no t = T1 that is part of the Universe.

…so your selection of T1 is not valid since it does not apply to the Universe as described by the Big Bang theory.

Also, selection of a time is not enough. You have to also provide the total energy of the Universe at that time or at least show that this value was different than at the T2 I selected. Your inappropriate selection of T1 aside, you did not accomplish this.

So you have proved nothing other than that the so called “event that created the Universe” does not exist as part of the Universe and is not part of the Big Bang theory. You already acknowledged this. It didn’t need to be proven.”

“pitts - Read it again. You're repeating yourself and you're not reading what I posted.

First of all, a little lesson in variables.

t=0 isn't necesarily different than T1

I want T1 to equal t=0, but I can't because YOU SCIENTISTS HAVE NO t=0, which is my point.

Try again.
last edited: 8/30/05 6:03:55 AM”

“By the way, not only do you not have a t=0 as a scientist, but I want to remind you that in the 2 weeks of this discussion, you've gone from saying that t=0 "MUST" exist, to when I asked for it to it "NEVER EXISTED".

Still waiting for you to make up your mind on that one.”

“Also, selection of a time is not enough. You have to also provide the total energy of the Universe at that time or at least show that this value was different than at the T2 I selected. - pitts

TO REPEAT MYSELF ...

The reason I cannot do that is the entire point I've been making.

Scientists do not know the answer to this because, as I said, "Scientists DO NOT have an explanation for how the universe could have come from nothing." ... therefore, they don't have a mathematical model of it at that time that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

TO REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN ...

If you want to prove me wrong, then PLEASE, by all means, provide me with such a mathematical model.

I have not seen it.

Neither have you.

It does not exist.

THAT'S MY POINT IN THIS DISCUSSION.

You want me to provide you with something that I have stated over and over again DOES NOT EXIST.

Go ahead, embarass yourself once again pitts and post the same question again. If you don't attempt to understand my point and respond to it like an adult, I will end this debate. You can declare victory if you want. I'm not concerned because it's preserved here in textual format for all to see. It's obvious up to this point you have no response to my claim. Heck, you can't even make up your own mind if the universe "MUST" have had a beginning, or it has "ALWAYS EXISTED".”

“…you agreed with me and made the following statement:

“To clarify, I agree with this statement: "the Big Bang theory claims nothing about events prior to t=0. It is a theory on the expansion from t=0". (sarge)

Then you defined “the very event that began the Universe”:

T1 is the very event than began the universe. (sarge)

AGAIN: It is a simple matter of causation to imply that your T1 “event” must occur before the Universe existed since the Universe would be a consequence of this “event”. Since the Universe existed at t=0 then T1 must be negative. The Big Bang theory does not permit for t < 0. There is no t = T1 that is part of the Universe, a statement you must accept based on your comment (which I will repeat for clarity):

“To clarify, I agree with this statement: "the Big Bang theory claims nothing about events prior to t=0. It is a theory on the expansion from t=0". (sarge)

Hence you have selected a point in spacetime that isn’t part of the Universe. You have incorrectly applied the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. So let’s revisit the burden of proof you undertook when you made the following statement:

“(pitts) “If you are saying that the way the origins of the universe that are taught in schools violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics then I would want to know what is taught that violates these laws.

The laws themselves would be violated under Big Bang theory.”
Sarge
4:20:58 PM (sarge)

I have said that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, which you claim is violated under the Big Bang theory, states that for any two times T1 and T2 the total energy of a closed system is a constant. Hence to support your claim you have to show two times T1 and T2 where the total energy of the Universe is different.

You have failed to do this. You have only provided me with a non-existent time and haven’t provided the total energy of the Universe at this time. Your entire argument is that you can’t prove anything about something that doesn’t exist.

You even went so far as to admit you could not prove this:

I can't pull a violation out of my butt because the premise of my statement is that such an event is NOT SUPPORTED BY MATHEMATICS OR KNOWN PHYSICS. (sarge)

You are the one that is embarrassing yourself, sarge.

Triple checkmate touchmate checkdown smackdown. Don't make me keep spiking the ball.”

“pitts - You seem to have a problem with variables.

When talking about "T1" in one context, it very likely could refer to another point in time in another context.

AGAIN: You keep telling me what you think I should be saying, not what I am saying. It's getting old pitts.

A "variable" does not always hold the same value. That is why it is called "variable". If you seem to confuse "variables" with "constants".

Look up these words in a dictionary, or a good old fashioned mathematics book, and then get back to me.
last edited: 8/30/05 1:13:23 PM”

“variable (n): Something that varies or is prone to variation.

Instead of being so worried about winning a semantics game, pitts, why don't you debate what it being said to you? That way you won't come across as such an ass. It's apparent you have no desire to debate this anymore.”

“And by the way pitts, T1 can be t=0 or 0.

The event that started the universe happened at the start of the universe, by definition, which would make it t=0 or 0.

You are referring to the beginning of the event that started the universe which is t < 0.

A man gets into a car and pushes on the gas. t < 0 (the beginning of the event that started the beginning of the universe)

A man hits a pedestrian. t = 0. (the beginning of the universe)

Pedestrian gets seriously injured and dies. t > 0 (expansion)

The event that led to the death began at t < 0.

The event itself that caused the death was t = 0.

Whether T1 = 0 or < 0 or > 0 is up to the context of the discussion. We get to choose. Lucky us.
last edited: 8/30/05 1:23:46 PM”

“OK, now we are getting somewhere. You selected T1=0. You are still confused on what T1=0 means, but I can help there.

By choosing T1=0 you selected the first point in spacetime where the Universe existed. That’s what t=0 means in the Big Bang theory. Like I keep saying, this isn’t a theory on causation. It’s a theory on expansion from a known initial state as you agreed earlier:

“To clarify, I agree with this statement: "the Big Bang theory claims nothing about events prior to t=0. It is a theory on the expansion from t=0". (sarge)

So T1=0 is a good choice. As good a choice as any other time from my perspective since the Big Bang theory says the Universe and spacetime existed at t=0. So you now have two points within the closed Universe that exist in Big Bang theory and coincidently where the Universe also exists. Now you can apply the 1st Law of Thermodynamics since you now have a system that meets its requirements.

So let’s proceed…

So I gave you T2=Current Date/Time on Earth, Total Energy of the Universe=E2

You have given me T1=0 (the first point in spacetime where the Universe existed, which is what t=0 in Big Bang theory means).

Now all you have to do is show me that E1 is different from E2 and you have proven your point which was:

“(pitts) “If you are saying that the way the origins of the universe that are taught in schools violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics then I would want to know what is taught that violates these laws.

The laws themselves would be violated under Big Bang theory.”
Sarge
4:20:58 PM (sarge)

By the way, I know the answer as to what E1 is. I bet you do as well.

REMEMBER: What you have proven is simple. You have proven that the “event that created the Universe” is not part of the Big Bang theory… that the Big Bang theory is not a theory of causation. This is neither a statement for or against such an event. It’s simply a statement that the Big Bang theory isn’t a theory on causation, which again you are in agreement on based on your earlier comment:

“To clarify, I agree with this statement: "the Big Bang theory claims nothing about events prior to t=0. It is a theory on the expansion from t=0". (sarge)

So now if you can support an argument that E1 is different from E2 you will have proven your point. If you cannot then your statement is false.”

“You are still confused on what T1=0 means, but I can help there. - pitts

Like I said, you are being an ass.

I did not give you T1 = 0. I told you what it is.

The reason I did not give you T1 = 0 is because it doesn't exist.

Why doesn't it exist?

Because science doesn't know what went on there. Like you said ... a theory of expansion. Why isn't it a theory of causation? BECAUSE SCIENTISTS CANNOT MATHEMATICALLY SHOW IT TO HAPPEN WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

As a matter of fact, some of the very theories you've proposed about what did happen there have already been dismissed. Ha!
That's how quickly the scientists change their "guesses". And it's not because of new knowledge. It's because they realize that they can't get the math to work. (like I said)

I'm done with this conversation for the sole reason that you are insistent on telling me what I am saying instead of listening to what I am saying. (ie - being an ass)

Declare victory if you want pitts.

For the last half of the debate you have been debating yourself, not me. You win.

(I'd advise you to read your last post (or last weeks worth) honestly in some free time. Ask yourself. Who are you debating with? Me or your own perception of what you want me to say to allow you to sway the discussion in your direction?)”

“Because science doesn't know what went on there. Like you said ... a theory of expansion. Why isn't it a theory of causation? BECAUSE SCIENTISTS CANNOT MATHEMATICALLY SHOW IT TO HAPPEN WITHOUT VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. (sarge)

So you just reiterated what we have accepted, that the Big Bang is a theory of expansion, not causation. Now you are claiming that science engineered this to be the case so it would not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You just stated that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is not violated under Big Bang theory …

“(pitts) “If you are saying that the way the origins of the universe that are taught in schools violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics then I would want to know what is taught that violates these laws.

The laws themselves would be violated under Big Bang theory.”
Sarge
4:20:58 PM (sarge)

So this statement you made is incorrect for two reasons. First you can’t support it. Second you admit that your understanding of the Big Bang theory is now such that you recognize it isn’t a theory on causation. You may not be happy about this because it blows your argument out of the water, but you can’t change what the Big Bang theory says to fit your wish to generate a violation in it any more than I could re-write the Bible to adopt it to align the written history of Genesis to certain theories of causation.

Why isn’t it a theory on causation? It isn’t a theory on causation because it specifically is a theory of the nature of the observable Universe.

You admitted that any process that created the initial state of the Universe (causation) would be non-observable. We argued about what this meant, but we didn’t disagree on this point. Hence the Big Bang theory confines its predictions to what we can observe and hence validate. It makes no predictions about what we can not observe. That last sentence is very important.

These statements are left to theories of causation. These theories are wide and varied. They all theorize around the question, “How did the Universe come to exist at the beginning of spacetime, t=0?” Some will say God was the non-observable source of causation that put the Universe in its state at t=0. Others, like your foam example, would claim that causation is related to a theory of Quantum Gravity that has yet to be validated. Others, like Hawking (whom for some bizarre reason you used a quote from on this topic), would say causation is related to Quantum Theory and the No Boundary Principal. All of these theories that I am aware of are highly speculative and scientists engage in exactly the kind of debate we just undertook with almost the same tone and level of name calling we just experienced (perhaps worse).

I will openly admit that on the topic of causation I won’t have arguments as strong as I had for the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Theories on causation are very speculative and hotly debated today. I could tell you what I currently subscribe to and you could beat the crap out of it if you wish. Alternately you could do the same and let me pound on it. It matters not. Heck, we might even agree! (unlikely)

Also your statement said the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics were violated under Big Bang Theory. If you wish we can move on to your theory regarding violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) under the Big Bang theory. Since the 2nd Law is closely linked to the 1st Law, be aware that your burden of proof is going to be equally difficult. You made this statement so you are going to have to prove it.

Alternately we could move on to a statement I picked up regarding how Evolution violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. We could jump from cosmology to Evolution.

You can choose. If you don’t want to continue talking about anything I’ll respect that as well, but be aware that I will follow this thread and challenge any statements I perceive as intellectual bullying or just plain falsehoods. So you may start a discussion unwillingly. Then again there is always the option to ignore me which you are free to exercise as a function of TT.”

“pitts is still debating with himself.”

“...be aware that I will follow this thread and challenge any statements I perceive as intellectual bullying or just plain falsehoods. So you may start a discussion unwillingly. - pitts

And I shall consider how much credibility you have if that happens.

=============================================

The conflict with thermodynamics comes when you assume that spacetime has no beginning and no end. If time is infinite in either direction (Einstein thought this to be the case) then the universe would have long since reached a state of perfect thermal equilibrium. So, in fact, to avoid violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics the Universe would HAVE to have a beginning.

pitts
5:37:00 PM
8/15/05

----------------------

However the Big Bang does not require a creation "event". The Universe is a closed system that has always existed under Big Bang theory. Since it has always existed it requires no creation "event".

pitts
12:38:36 PM
8/29/05”

“wouldnt it be funny if pitts was s-rge's troll? or maybe a figment of his imagination”

“Not only do I not understand your point, I can't even figure out what point you are trying to make.

First statement:

At first I thought you believed that the Universe had existed for an infinite amount of time as many laymen believe, and hence were claiming that the Universe violated the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. This is rather common and not so bright argument I have seen used.

Turns out you were more than willing to accept that the Universe could not be infinitely old, and a good thing that you did. The argument for why this is not the case is rather obvious. An infinitely old Universe would indeed violate the Laws of Thermodynamics since everything is not at equilibrium as we observe it today (everything is not at the same temperature which would be the case if it was infinitely old). So the Universe has to have a beginning. I did not have to make this argument since you did not support the position I thought you might.

Before you go “cut and paste” the comment “The universe has always existed” I guess I should clarify that as well. “Always existed” means “there is no point in time where it did not exist”. Welcome to the language of cosmology. “Always”, when it refers to the past, doesn’t mean “an infinite time into the past” because we know such a thing doesn’t exist since spacetime and the Universe first exist at t=0. I was not saying the Universe was infinitely old, I was saying that in the Big Bang theory there is no time when the Universe does not exist (because it is a theory of the observable Universe).

Second statement:

Since the Universe has existed at all points in time, the Big Bang theory does not require a non-observable event to explain observable spacetime. As I have said at least twice, this isn’t a statement that the Universe was or was not “created”, just that if this process took place it did so in a non-observable frame of reference. The Big Bang theory is not a theory of causation. It is a theory of the expansion of the observable Universe. You agreed this was the case, so I fail to see why you object to this comment.

I have told you (in my last post) that you will fare better if you shift the topic of conversation to theories of causation. You wanted to re-write the Big Bang theory to claim something it doesn’t so you could concoct some sort of Thermodynamics violation within it.

I have no problems whatsoever with you doubting my credibility. I don’t require your validation and don’t mind you not offering it up. I don’t even mind your name calling, personal insults, and distasteful references to my parents’ copulation.

So again, you choose the next topic or choose to withdraw. It’s your decision but I am not leaving the thread.”

“Before you go “cut and paste” the comment “The universe has always existed” ... - pitts

actual cut/paste:

So, in fact, to avoid violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics the Universe would HAVE to have a beginning.

Not only have you been debating yourself instead of my points, you read what you want to read about my points instead of what I post, as is evident here and elsewhere.

pitts - You've been nothing but a condescending ass (hense the name calling) and you haven't been debating me at all. I think you've been reliving the debates you said you've had with your friends or what you've read online from IDers. It's all here in print. You've also done what many scientists do and that is you've tried to limit the scope of the discussion. Why? Because you would lose if we talked about creation. Guess what? "Intelligent design" is a topic about creation. Unfortunately for you.”

“pitts - You've been nothing but a condescending ass (hense (sic) the name calling)What do you think repeatedly calling someone an ass is?

pot, meet kettle. kettle, meet pot. youre
both black.

You've also done what many scientists do and that is you've tried to limit the scope of the discussion. Why? Because you would lose if we talked about creation. Guess what? "Intelligent design" is a topic about creation

once again, its all about winning and losing an argument with you, and not searching for truth or sharing ideas.

scientists limit the scope of discussion because ID is not science. theyre funny like that.”

“crash - Origins/creation is science. I didn't say they don't talk about ID. I said they don't talk about creation.

You've made my point. Scientists don't want to talk about the very beginning, as is evident from the discussion with pitts (had with himself), and as you have just confirmed.”

“crash - Do you think that the event that started everything is not worthy of scientific pursuit?”

“I got my book yesterday The Hidden Face of God by Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder . In just skimming it the book seems to be written for the religious person in such a way to bring THEM towards science and not the other way around. It doesn’t seem to so much try to prove ID but just show some of the spiritual connections and wonders of science. One thing is for sure, the book is a bit above what I normally read so I’m going to take it slow and in chunks.”

“Not only have you been debating yourself instead of my points, you read what you want to read about my points instead of what I post, as is evident here and elsewhere. (sarge)

This is totally incorrect. I read your points and they were flawed. I pointed out your flaws: You refuse to apply the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to the Big Bang theory. You keep applying it to your version of the Big Bang theory so that you can generate a violation. I corrected your mischaracterization of the Big Bang theory which you acknowledged:

“To clarify, I agree with this statement: "the Big Bang theory claims nothing about events prior to t=0. It is a theory on the expansion from t=0". (sarge)

The Big Bang theory is a theory of the expansion of the observable Universe, which you acknowledge. That’s why your attempts to define causation as part of the Universe fell outside the Big Bang theory. This should not be a shock to you.

The Big Bang Theory says nothing about causation because it only makes predictions about the observable Universe. It is neither a confirmation nor denial of any process of causation. Yet you keep insisting that the Big Bang theory make statements about events that are both observable and non-observable. Yet you kept selecting non-observable “events” for which t is negative (t<0) as a way to interpret the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in the context of the Big Bang (despite the fact that you acknowledged that non-observable causation mechanisms are not part of the Big Bang theory).

Note that you acknowledged that any process of causation would not be observable:

“I am about to claim that events prior to the Big Bang can in fact not be observed because they occur outside the frame of reference of the Universe. If you agree with this point then there is no need to answer my question, obviously.” (pitts)
.
.
.
“I agree with that, but I also think I can answer your question in a way that will further the discussion.

That being said (that it cannot be observed), there could be sound mathematical evidence for such an event. I mean, if you disagree with that, pa-leeze let me know. {snicker} If you'll note, I've said more than once that I will accept mathematical evidence for you stance. I still have not seen it.”” (sarge)

The “mathematical evidence” you were looking for resides in theories of causation. In short, you are pounding sand around the wrong theory. Go try and light your fire in a different house.

So I have no idea what you are looking for other than a violation in the Big Bang theory that you want to exist rather than one you can prove exists.

Science has never denied that causation is possible and you pointed to at least two theories on the topic. You pointed to one based on Quantum Gravity and the other was when you misquoted Hawking (which I explained to you). I pointed out a few others in my last post.”

“Nigal: Could you post the ISBN number for your book? I am always looking to add to my reading list.
last edited: 8/31/05 10:51:16 AM”

“I got my copy through the market place at Amazon for about $10...”

“and the other was when you misquoted Hawking - pitts

LOL. Yeah, my copy and paste buttons misquoted him. Sorry about that. Keyboard has a mind of it's own.

pitts is still debating himself.”

“I agree, you cut-and-pasted his words quite accurately. Congratulations on your superior skills with Google and a mouse. You did not discuss the entire argument he offered in his debate with Penrose. Like your treatment of the Big Bang theory (where you want to include mechanisms at t<0), you selectively revised a theory to fit the premise you wished to prove.”

“pitts is debating with himself still ...”

“Do you think that the event that started everything is not worthy of scientific pursuit?

its worthy of pursuit, certainly. but right now, its sheer speculation, because the known scientific laws do not apply”

“Crash Bang: Actually there are many theories and this is a hot area of theoretical cosmology. The most notable and famous is Hawking's No Boundary Proposal. It's some very heavy reading, but it is founded in the concept of "Imaginary Time", an idea defined in Quantum Theory that any 3rd year undergraduate Physics Student studies. Sarge actually pointed out another such theory based on the theory of Quantum Gravity. There are many others. None have been observed or verified that I am aware of.
last edited: 8/31/05 11:24:07 PM”

“Is it really that hard for you to accept that your statement was incorrect? You don't even have to admit that you were wrong, just that you misunderstood the Big Bang theory as well as how to apply the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to it.”

“If you read the series in the NY Times on the escalating intelligent design movement, you may have noticed that the Verizon Foundation is a contributor to the Discovery Institute. This organization is a Christian-fundamentalist think-tank, the primary goal of which is to promote intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

I would urge you to contact the Verizon Foundation at the URL below, and make your opinion heard regarding the hypocrisy of a science-and-technology based company such as Verizon contributing to an organization that is attempting to undermine science education across the country.

http://www22.verizon.com/customersupport/contactus/corporate/verizonfoundation/



The above was forwarded to me and I encourage anyone who is concered about the future of science and education to take action with the above-posted link.”

“Thanks Twinks. I'll shoot them an e mail tomorrow asap thanking them for supporting multipul points of view and being open-minded enough to donate to them. :)”

“The 'problem' with 'Intelligent Design', as I call it and understand from my studies into this issue, is that this idea is based on the role of an intelligent designer...something which is not testable, not questionable, not able to be proved correct nor wrong, i.e., it is a BELIEF...in the CREATION of life. Beliefs are not science. Beliefs are in the realm of religion, morality, philosophy, etc. not SCIENCE.

Intelligent Design belongs in a theological or philosophical setting but most certainly not in a scientific setting.

I would think that a company based on science and technology would be more keen on supporting the future scientific/technological minds, .i.e., those who would more readily advance the growth and development of this company, than that which has no place at all in the world of science.

What's next? Is NASA going to donate funds to an organization which calls astrology... science (yeah, I know NASA is funded by the federal government...just try to follow my point)?”

“Oh yeah, meant to add...

If a company wants to donate to an organization which is trying to advocate the teaching of this issue in a non-science class, then fine. I've no problem with that. However, if the organization is advocating the teaching of this issue in a science class...then we've got big problems. Just as creationism (another belief) has no place in a science class.

This is why science and theology are two seperate 'beasts'.”

“The thing I find frustrating about Intelligent Design is this belief that arguments against Evolution are arguments for Intelligent Design. Here is a quote from ARN that I see as typical:

Through this two-pronged approach of critiquing Darwinism on the one hand and providing a positive alternative on the other, the Intelligent Design movement has rapidly gained adherents among the best and brightest in the academy. Already it is responsible for Darwinism losing its corner on the intellectual market. If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy. And since no aspect of western culture has escaped Darwinism's influence, so no aspect of western culture will escape reevaluation in the light of Intelligent Design.

They don't even call it a theory… they call it a "movement" based on "positive" alternatives. "Positive"? Half of their approach is based on tearing down another theory. That's certainly not "positive" as in "positivism". The modern positivist scientific community would afford the "Intelligent Design Movement" far more than the Intelligent Design Movement is clearly willing provide in return.

What’s worse, it’s not only a theistic agenda but one based on the Christian God.

William Dembski, a leader of sorts in current Intelligent Design theory, wrote:

"Not only does intelligent design rid us of this ideology (materialism), which suffocates the human spirit, but, in my personal experience, I've found that it opens the path for people to come to Christ." (Dembski. 2005. Intelligent Design's Contribution to the Debate Over Evolution: A Reply to Henry Morris.

So while there may be an attempt to hide the “designer” behind a secular curtain I feel the fabric used to hide the designer is very then and the Christian God is clearly visible (in places such as Dembski’s writing).

I see no reason for Intelligent Design to be taught as an alternative to Evolution in public schools.”

“"is that this idea is based on the role of an intelligent designer...something which is not testable, not questionable, not able to be proved correct nor wrong, i.e., it is a BELIEF...in the CREATION of life. Beliefs are not science. Beliefs are in the realm of religion, morality, philosophy, etc. not SCIENCE."

Neither is the theory of life beginning from ooze. They are both improvable and can not be duplicated. It is not about the will to replace one theory with another but a desire to have them both taught side by side. I find it very interesting how ID opponents have no problem whatsoever with the fact that anyone who even acts like they are for ID are railroaded and blackballed within the academic community…just like when the Church dictated beliefs.

Both theories have their place in academics IMHO because both are improvable they are, thus, both equally valid.”